A father, husband, and forensic psychologist examines the "lighter" side of clinical and forensic psychology, with pop culture and other personal interests thrown in for good measure.

October 08, 2010

This is a review of an article published in the Journal of Consumer Marketing (2007). It is entitled, "An inquiry into the factors that impact on consumer appreciation of a board game." It was authored by Alain d’Astous and Karine Gagnon, both of Montreal, Canada. Normally I review articles that have more direct relevance to psychology, specifically clinical or forensic. However, as you can tell from this blog, I have an interest in blogging about other things (when I blog at all!), and that includes games. I figured I’d see what kind of research was out there about board games, rather than the usual things, such as examining whether video games lead to violence. Thus, one literature search later, I was able to identify a few articles addressing various aspects of board games that I thought might be interesting, including this one. However, this article is much more of a business analysis of board games, rather than a straight examination of the psychology of board games, so to the extent my understanding of particular business terms and concepts is lacking, I apologize.

As is typical with journal articles, the authors lead with an introduction to their study, to include a review of past research that leads to their particular question. Here, the authors note that certain board games enjoy significant popularity among large groups of people, and personally I was encouraged by the identification of Settlers of Catan in this opening sentence, alongside of Scrabble and Monopoly. The authors go on to note that while researchers have examined the reasons behind consumer preferences for many different leisure products, little research has explored preferences for board games. Basically, the authors posit the question of what features explain the popularity of certain board games?

The authors do cite several prior studies into playing games, and they note a particular description of the theories of game playing that was offered in the 1973 book Why People Play, by M.J. Ellis:

1) Classical Theories - playing games is seen as a human instinct

2) Modern Theories - games represent a means to fulfill some unsatisfied psychological or emotional need

3) Contemporaneous Theories - games are conceived as activities that are performed to maintain an optimal level of stimulation and to avoid boredom

Another categorization was identified, from the 1981 article "Play: a ludic behavior," by H.I. Day:

1) Exploratory games - associated with discovery

2) Creative games - associated with imagination

3) Entertaining games - associated with mere enjoyment

4) Mimetic games - role playing

5) Cathartic games - play as a form of therapy

The current authors note that Day also identified three fundamental dimensions a game can be identified on, regardless of which category the game fell into: the level of internal control it offers, the intrinsic and extrinsic forces that motivate the player, and the affect (or pleasure) that ensues. Together, these three dimensions equate with the "playfulness" of the game, which is the uniqueness of the game experience.

The authors move on to note that game-playing is seen as a form of leisure activity, and then review some of the theoretical considerations associated with leisure choice in general. Primary among these are intrinsic satisfaction, a sense of accomplishment, and even the perception of freedom associated with certain leisure activities. The authors also review a theory of board game-playing by Vinacke ("Variables in experimental games: toward a field theory," 1969) that discusses the various aspects of playing a board game (such as knowing the rules, considering specific situational variables, etc.), but note this in the context of why certain games may be more appealing.

Another view is reviewed by the authors, as offered by Orbanes in 2002 ("Everything I know about business I learned from Monopoly," Harvard Business Review). Here, the authors outline Orbanes’s six basic principles for creating a successful board game:

1) having rules that are simple and clear

2) making the game comprehensible and accessible to all kinds of players

3) establishing a rhythm so that players can easily follow the evolution of the game

4) giving all players the possibility to influence the game outcomes, notably by having a game based on chance and strategy

5) allowing the players to live a truly unique experience

6) creating an off-the-board stimulating social experience

The authors then get to their research. They note that they first needed to define a "board game" for the purpose of the research, and did so: "For the purpose of this research, a board game was defined as having the following characteristics: it could be played by two or more players, around a board (or a physical support), with a set of rules, and a clear objective." The authors acknowledge that this definition limits the inclusion of many forms of games, to include chess and checkers.

Sampling and Data Collection: First, the authors interviewed 13 board game players and 13 board game professionals, in order to identify the factors of board games that would be worth examining. The players were divided fairly evenly along gender, education, and playing intensity. The professionals were identified through the help of a private firm. Nine of the professionals were male, and the work experience ranged from 5-35 years. The sample included game creators, distributors, and a manufacturer.

Among the findings of the author’s interviews with this sample were the following:

1) The participants agreed the rules must be clear and understandable

2) Many participants noted a quality game is organized around a relevant theme that is original, not too complex, and actualized to the social context of the players. In part, theme was noted to allow for stimulation of one’s imagination, consistent with the earlier theories noted above.

3) All participants noted the game should provide stimulation, entertainment, and ought to be fun. Passive moments, where player’s had to wait, were discouraged. Some creators indicated a belief a board game should be conceived with the idea that it will provoke discussion, arguments, and jokes.

4) Games should be dynamic, and not redundant. Occasional surprises were also encouraged. That is, even though players ought to have an idea of how they are doing, they should also be aware of possibilities that might occur, which lends itself to tension.

5) Too much chance was discouraged, and it was noted this would interfere with the theory that games are played in part to provide a sense of accomplishment. Decision-making lends itself to a feeling of competence.

6) length was identified as an important variable.

7) Number of players and type of game were also cited. That is, certain issues (such as game length) mattered more with certain types of games (for example, length of a game as related to a strategy game versus a humor or "party" game).

Research Hypothesis: The researchers hypothesized that the potential determinants of the appreciation of a board game could be found among these seven ares:

1) the comprehensibility of the game

2) the entertainment that comes along with playing it

3) its rhythm (i.e. it is dynamic, not redundant)

4) elements of unexpectedness

5) the level of control players have

6) the level of challenge

7) its potential to create fantasies (i.e. the extent to which it leads players to have a unique/uncommon experience).

Survey: Data was collected via survey from 169 adult Canadian boardgamers. Participants were asked to think of a board game with which they were familiar, and answer a series of questions about it. Following that, they could repeat the exercise with a different, but also familiar, board game. The survey asked participants questions in all hypothesized areas, as well as various demographic questions. Interestingly, female respondents outnumbered male respondents 2:1. Most responders were under 55-years old. Education was pretty evenly distributed. Monopoly was chosen by the most participants (24.9%), followed by Scrabble (17.1%). Overall, Cranium was the game identified as most appreciated (though the category "Other" included 28.8% of games chosen), while Monopoly was least appreciated. Here are some of the relevant comparisons:

1) Appreciated Overall: Most - Cranium; Least - Monopoly

2) Comprehensibility: Most - Scrabble; Least - Risk

3) Entertaining: Most - Cranium; Least - the others (Cranium was statistically ahead of all others)

4) Rhythm: Most - Scattergories; Least - Monopoly

5) Chance: Most Chance - Scattergories; Least Chance - Monopoly

6) Challenging: Most - Risk; Least - Clue

7) Fantasy Stimulation: Most - Cranium; Least - Monopoly

Other findings: First, the findings that were in agreement with prior literature. Statistical analyses examined the rating by players on the various games, and why those games appealed to them. The authors found that games that allow for fantasy and uncommon experience were significantly more appreciated. Among all of the factors measured, this factor had the strongest impact.

The second important factor was overall experience of being entertained. The games that allowed for interaction, having fun, arguing, etc. rated higher. Another finding was that the element of surprise in a game was found to be significant, but only among males players - female players did not rate games with this element as any better. The authors note prior research on gender-based risk-aversion, as well as studies into gambling, that might account for this. Rhythm, conversely, impacted women more than men.

The authors note that one limitation of the study was the game’s self-selection by the participants. This was done in order to avoid participants being asked to rated unfamiliar games. Unfortunately, this resulted in participants choosing games that were very familiar with, and generally had high opinions of. The first game selected by participants was preferred to the second game chosen by a statistically significant margin. This was offered as a reason why comprehensibility may not have achieved a prominent place in the factoring; people chose games they already knew and understood.

The authors also noted that the challenge of a game did not rate significantly. No real explanation was offered, though they did note that board games may simply rely less of its challenge as opposed to its social aspect, than, say, video games. That is, board games don’t rely on their degree of challenge to still be considered good, as compared to video games, which don’t offer other aspects to make them appealing. As usual, the article ends with the usual emphasis on how further research into this area would be great. In this case, I agree! However, the authors also offer an addendum to their article entitled "Managerial Implications, " and another entitled, "Executive Summary and Implications for Managers and Executives." The first addresses the business side of board games, with these findings in mind. The second is a brief overall of the findings of the article.

My own thoughts: I enjoyed the article, though I think there is a divergence between the initial theories, which were generated in part through the aid of more serious board game players, and the findings, which appear to be based on the opinions of causal board game players. There is nothing wrong with getting data from the causal gamer group, but I really think that their preferences are a different animal than what the more dedicated gamers look for. the other problem is availability - many games that are consistently ranked much higher by people who play board games as a hobby aren't available mass market; you have to seek them out. This is improving (I've seen Settlers of Catan at Target, and the big book stores are starting to carry what used to be considered niche games, such as Dominion and Puerto Rico). However, I just don't know, especially with the self-selection of the game preferences by the participants, how useful the data ultimately is. As usual, though, i'm encouraged simply by people taking a look at this stuff - it's fun and interesting to read about.

October 06, 2010

Interesting article at the NY Times examines why certain e-books are priced higher than the physical hardcovers - seems to be a pricing-rights issue between the publishers and book sellers/distributors.

September 09, 2010

Via Research Blogging, I came across the blog Thoughts of a Neo-Academic, written by an Industrial/Organizational Psychologist. He has started a 10-part review of a recent special issue of the Journal of General Psychology, which examines the research into violence and video games. Part One is here, and worth a read. I tend to agree with this initial conclusion, that the media (and certain researchers) tend to take advantage of the occasional "big time" story to advance the narrative of violence being caused by video games, when in fact the research has concluded no such general, broad-based finding. I look forward to the follow-up installments.

September 08, 2010

This NY Times article does a nice job summarizing recent research findings, which run counter to the prevailing wisdom when it comes to study habits. I particularly like the section that addresses a multi-modal study style, in which various distinct, but related, areas are studied during an individual study session, as opposed to lengthy periods of study focused on one topic. As the article notes, athletes and musicians have figured this out long ago, so why haven't students? Worth a read, especially if you have kids, are a teacher of some sort, or are in school yourself.

September 01, 2010

I really liked this post at Brain Posts, not so much because I have an iPad (because I don't), but because of the idea of developing a comprehensive file library for whatever portable computer one uses. The point made by the author is that, with netbooks and iPads, carrying around a large number of pdf files, some of which can be quite informative (and contain charts, graphs, data,etc.), as well as directly related to one's work. The list provided at the linked post appears quite comprehensive, though geared toward the clinician. I've been developing a library of pdf files for my work laptop, primarily for when I am called to testify on competency or responsibility. It is incredibly convenient to have hundreds of journal articles, all in pdf format, located on the hard drive of a laptop; no more dragging around a bunch of paper copies, just on the off chance you may need to look at one of them. At some point, I may make a list of some available pdf files that are handy to put on your portable computer, but of both clinical and forensic utility. In the meantime, I'm definitely going to take a look at some of the links provided at Brain Posts.

August 31, 2010

"In more contemporary accounts of hallucination, it has been difficult to find an unambiguous definition. Nonetheless, it is important to agree on a suitable working definition that will guide theory and research, and in describing efforts at reaching such a definition, we will be able to demarcate hallucinations from other phenomena that might share some phenomenological features. The APA Dictionary of Psychology defined hallucinations as "a false sensory perception that has the compelling sense of reality despite the absence of an external stimulus" (VandenBos, 2007, p. 427; see Exhibit 1.1 for the complete definition). This certainly captures the essence of a hallucinatory experience, although a more precise description should be possible. For example, the statement"despite the absence of an external stimulus" might not be entirely accurate, because some hallucinations are triggered by (irrelevant) external stimuli - for example, patients who start hearing voices when the vacuum cleaner is switched on. Hallucinations have been defined in different ways (see Exhibit 1.1 for a list), although they have a number of elements in common."

Last week, I posted a few times on the subjects of statistics and research. I acknowledged then that I have been a consumer of research and journal articles, but I have not done much in producing research, especially since completing my dissertation. Coincidentally, last week I also started to read How to Write A Lot, by Paul Silvia, Ph.D. It is a short, direct "how to" guide to increasing one's productivity regarding academic writing.

The book itself is easy to read, both in terms of understanding it, and in its style. There is no effort here to empathize with the difficulties associated with academic writing: Silvia's attidue is pretty much, "Yes, writing is hard, and often boring/unrewarding/painful. But, if you want to do it, rather than thinking about doing it without actually doing it, here's what you need to do." Simple and to-the-point suggestions for being accountable tod increasing productivity are what the book offers.

Right off the bat, in Chapter Two, Silvia hits one nail on the head. He notes people often have trouble getting their writing done because of various "specious barriers," which he describes as superficially legitimate reasons for not writing, but which "crumble under critical scrutiny." His very first specious barrier is one I've often succumbed to: "I can't find time to write." He notes, correctly, that to get anything done in a consistent, productive manner, one needs to schedule time for the task, not find time for it. We schedule time for that which we prioritize: If we want to write more, we need to schedule time to do so, not simply throw writing in with other lesser tasks that we get around to now and then. This little section impacted me right away; since I read it, I've been able to take multiple steps towards two different projects I'd been thinking about for some time, but hadn't actually made a move on. Often, it is not that you don't know something, but that you need it put in your face a certain way, in order to make the information relevant and used. In this case, How to Write A lot has started me on tasks I'd been pushing off. I'm looking forward to reading more.

August 30, 2010

"The motivations and consequences of methamphetamine use examined in previous chapters clearly suggest that treatment models should be holistic in their approach and imbue a biopsychosocial paradigm that considers mind-body connections. Biopsychosocial methodologies consider the interplay between the intrapsychic and biological processes of persons, their behaviors, the physical and mental health consequences of these behaviors, and individual influences. Such treatment approaches support the view of addiction as a chronic brain disease (Leshner, 1997). Specifically, imaging research has concluded that the methamphetamine-addicted brain has depleted dopamine function, reduced cellular activity in the frontal cortex, which affects decision making, and that reduced dopamine receptor levels may create a higher level of vulnerability to methamphetamine abuse and addiction (Fowler, Volkow, Kassed, & Chang, 2007). Taken together, these elements indicate treatment modalities that underscore the biological elements of addiction, in addition to intrapsychic, behavioral, and environmental processes."

While in the process of conducting a literature search for a possible area of research interest (yes, I am actually doing, and not just thinking about doing, research-related tasks!), I came across an article published in Volume 39 (2008) of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (the link provides access to the abstract only). The article is entitled, "Specialized Practice in Forensic Psychology: Opportunities and Obstacles," and was authored by Ira K. Packer, Ph.D. I like the article very much as a basic descriptor of what forensic psychology is.

More specifically, the article simultaneously notes that there continues to be a wealth of opportunity for psychologists in the various sub-specialities of forensic psychology, due to a significant need for quality work in the area. Packer cites various statistics about the numbers of requests for various types of psycho-legal evaluations, and he also provides definitions for terms associated with forensic work.

In addition, the author provides brief summaries of the most important areas that a clinical psychologist must address if he or she is to engage in forensic-related work. The article reviews various areas of specialized knowledge, such as developing a conceptualized understanding of the areas related to competency to stand trial, as well as the various measures that have been developed to assit in this type of assessment. The differences in professional roles between the clinician and evaluator are discussed, as well as the particular issues associated with providing expert testimony. The importance of developing knowledge of the dinstinctive research associated primarily with forensic work is also reviewed.

The limited amount of available pre-doctoral, internship, and post-doctoral training in forensic psychology is addressed, and recommendations for supervision in forensic work are offered. The article, by itself, does not provide in depth detail with respect to a number of these issues; however, it does provide a nice outline for those seeking a basic primer regarding the field of forensic psychology, and what is involved in developing an expertise within this specialization. I'd recommend it to anyone who who like a summary of the field, as well as some citations related to the topics, to provide for further inquiry, if desired.

August 25, 2010

Over at Geekdad, they've posted an interview with David Peterson, who has been charged with creating a new language specifically for the HBO adaptation of George R.R. Martin's A Game of Thrones. I look forward to watching this eventually, as I don't subscribe to HBO. I enjoyed the first three books of Martin's series immensely. I didn't get through my first effort on the fourth book of the series - the main problem was the span of time between the third and fourth books, which was so long I had trouble picking up where the story had left off. I'll probably go through the whole series again from the beginning at some point, especially now that I see this production being made. HBO tends to do this sort of thing well, so hopefully the screen version won't disappoint. The interview is worth a quick read; the linguistics of creating a new language based on a fictional world is interesting (at least to me!).